1) The utter uncompassionate nature of Flaherty's and Harper's actions.2) The loss of income, financial welfare and living standards to seniors and retirees post 2010.3) The loss of Canadian economic and business sovereignty associated with all the opportunistic takeovers.

John Ivison absolutely obliterates the Liberal platform in the National Post this morning...if by obliterate you mean contradict every Tory attack line on the Green Shift from the last three months.

Observe:

Stephane Dion said the Liberal platform he released yesterday is built on "very solid numbers," but the claim was made more in hope than expectation.

So John starts out by laying the frame for his critique: The Liberals claim of a balanced platform is garbage. That's a claim that lots of Tory mouthpieces - a title for which Ivison certainly qualifies - have made. After discussing the $55-billion over four years in tax cuts and new investments that Liberals made in the platform, he points out, correctly, that $40-billion needs to be "found." Then he concedes:

The biggest problem for Mr. Dion is not that he won't be able to raise $40-billion within four years from the carbon tax...

And in fact, Ivison has the audacity to quote - get this - an economist to back up that the revenue projections are accurate:

Professor (Jack) Mintz said yesterday....that the Liberal number is not "out of range."

Um, I'm confused John...haven't you just conceded that the Liberal plan is balanced? Of course not:

The question is, what happens next...If the carbon tax works as the Liberal leader hopes, emissions will tumble as people substitute away from carbon. But if they tumble, so will tax revenue.

Let me make sure that I get this straight. For three months, the Tories' main attack line against the Green Shift is it is a tax on everything that won't reduce emissions at all. In fact, Stephen Harper said "it's not even really an environmental plan." Now that every economist (other than PMSH) and environmentalist have refuted that argument, the new criticism is it is going to work too well.

I mean, we all know that, don't we? That's what the Tories have been saying all along, isn't it? That the Green Shift will work TOO well - and then what will you do? Come on, Liberals, what then? And look at poor Stephane - what a loser. I mean, sure his plan for the years 2009-2013 is fully balanced - Ivison has conceded that - but what the heck is he gonna do between 2013-2017 after emissions have tumbled and therefore revenue from the Green Shift starts going down?

So to repeat, John's argument is not that THIS Liberal platform is unbalanced; it's that the NEXT Liberal platform will be unbalanced, and how can you vote for a guy who fails to present a balanced platform one, maybe two elections from now? Stephane Dion: He may be up to the job for one four-year mandate. But don't give him an eight-year blank check - he's not up to that job.

But Ivison's not finished:

A number of European countries have already gone down this route by introducing a carbon tax, spending the proceeds and then being forced to find new revenue sources, such as employment insurance or mandatory pension fund premiums, when the tax dried up.

Gee, for a "risky scheme" that is "just a theory" that has "never worked anywhere" (all Stephen Harper's words, not mine), that doesn't sound right at all. So parse the sentence above: A number of European countries have introduced green shifts; the green shifts worked; emissions went down thanks to the carbon tax and they "spent" the carbon tax on, get this, tax cuts on income and investment. But, at a certain point, because the carbon tax worked so well, they had to, amazingly, "adjust" their policies.

So - and here is a big concession on my part, Tim, rev up your engines and get ready to pounce - in 2013, as he prepares for likely his third election campaign, Stephane Dion MAY need to announce a new policy - either lower spending or new revenue sources. How this is in any way an argument against the current Liberal platform is beyond me.

Two final notes:

1. It should be noted that a number of the European countries that have implemented carbon taxes did not need to raise ANY new taxes as emissions fell. Why? Because their economies grew so much (with the carbon tax in place) that tax revenues from income and spending were more than sufficient to withstand a declining carbon tax intake. (Of course in Canada, we will slip into a deep recession if we even try doing this.)

2. I thought neo-cons were supposed to be supply-siders. Anyone see the contradiction between John's argument and basic supply-side economic theory? Now, I think trickle down theories are bunk but then again, I'm not a neo-con.

EVENTS

Income Trust Halloween VigilThanks to all who participated in both the Ottawa and Calgary vigils to mark the anniversary of the announcement.

WE"D LIKE SOME ANSWERS

As you well know, the ‘income trust thing’ has grown beyond the
question of whether fair taxes are paid on income from trusts. It’s
become a giant dirty snowball, and as it rolls forward it accumulates
more and more bulk. There are so many unanswered questions. Let's list a few and invite our "Accountable" government and our free press to provide some much-needed answers.

It is said “Trusts are inefficient use of capital. Why?” Two
related questions are ‘Whose money is it, anyway?’, and ‘Do Canadian
investors have a free and efficient market?’

How can information that is already in the public domain at SEDAR
make for a state secret? How could such information be used to harm
the Canadian national interest? And who would cause the harm?

Why won’t the Canadian media investigate the falsehoods and
misrepresentations told by the Minister of Finance to a committee of
Parliament? Was the Minister in contempt of Parliament?

Why won’t the Canadian media report (a) government tax revenues
gained from BCE in 2006 when BCE was a corporation to (b) government
tax revenues that would be gained in 2007 from BCE, if BCE had been
allowed to proceed to a trust, and (c) government tax revenues that
will be gained in 2007 from BCE, when BCE ownership has been carved
up as 45% foreign ownership and 55% large Canadian pension fund
ownership?